Supreme Court debates victims' power to sue federal agents

A significant legal dispute was argued in the US Supreme Court on Monday, considering whether the power of victims to sue federal agents should be limited or completely abolished. This case arises from a lawsuit filed by a federal prison inmate, who suffered a fracture in her tailbone during a gang fight. The decision in this case could determine in the future whether immigrants or protesters can ever sue federal immigration agents for violence inflicted upon them.

The main petitioner, Kekai Watanaike, stated that she had informed prison nurse Frances Nilson about her intense pain, but she was only given medication for mild pain. Seven months after the incident, an X-ray finally revealed that her bones were fractured, which was the reason for her constant suffering. Watanaike had personally sued Nilson under the 8th Amendment of the Constitution on charges of cruel and unusual punishment.

In this legal battle, a federal judge had previously dismissed this claim, citing the Supreme Court's decades-old skeptical stance. However, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals revived Watanaike's claim. The appellate court referred to a 1980 ruling where a similar claim by a mother of a son who died of an asthma attack in federal prison was allowed. Notably, this was the last time the highest court upheld a claim for monetary compensation against a federal agent for violation of constitutional rights.

During the arguments ongoing in the Supreme Court on Monday, judges were discussing whether to further limit such claims or deny them entirely. Conservative members of the court stated that the authority to grant claims for monetary compensation against federal agents and employees lies solely with Congress. Referring to the Federal Tort Claims Act, they stated that Congress has granted the authority to file claims for compensation against the United States for such claims.

According to Lucas Walker, lawyer for nurse Frances Nilson, the right to create the authority for compensation belongs to Congress, not federal courts. He identified this process as the 'Bivens experiment' and said that the time has come to end it. The term 'Bivens' refers to a 1971 decision in which the Supreme Court for the first time allowed a constitutional claim for monetary compensation against a federal agent. In that case, a suit was filed against FBI agents for improper search by violating the 4th Amendment during a drug raid. Walker argued that the court should quash the Bivens case as well as previous rulings related to serious medical negligence.

On the other hand, Watanaike's lawyer Joshua Wesneski argued that the possibility of suing for wrongdoing has a powerful deterrent effect. Six conservative judges appeared divided on whether to limit or completely abolish such claims. In the past, Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr., and Neil M. Gorsuch had said that the court should admit its mistake of the 1970s and end such claims based on constitutional rights. However, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Brett Kavanaugh took a middle path. They stated that the court should maintain its past rulings but should not move beyond them.

The US Constitution protects the rights of citizens, but generally, it does not allow them to sue for violations of these rights by federal agents. The dispute over remedies against these rights has remained divided in the Supreme Court for almost 50 years.